U.S. smoking rates dropping slowly

LogicSoDeveloped

LogicSoDeveloped

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
3,427
Location
The Mountains
Smoking prevalence in the U.S. has fallen over the last five years, but not at a consistent rate, CDC researchers said.

The percentage of adults who smoke fell from 20.9% in 2005 to 19.3% in 2010 (P<0.05 for trend), a 1.6% drop that amounts to about three million fewer smokers than there would have been with no decline, Brian King, PhD, of the CDC, and colleagues reported in the Sept. 6 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report.

But that means about one in five adults -- some 45 million Americans -- still smoke, the researchers said.

As well, the amount and direction of change has not been consistent year-to-year. For instance, there was a slight drop from 2006 to 2007, but not from 2007 to 2008, they wrote.

"It's been much slower than the rate of decline in the previous five years," Thomas Frieden, MD, MPH, director of the CDC, said during a telephone briefing. "We can certainly do much better."

The good news, Frieden said, is that the percentage of heavy smokers is down. Those who smoke 30 or more cigarettes per day fell from 12.7% in 2005 to 8.3% in 2010 (P<0.05 for trend).

At the same time, more Americans became light smokers (smoking one to nine cigarettes per day), rising to 21.8% in 2010 from 16.4% in 2005 (P<0.05 for trend).

But the researchers wrote that "even occasional smoking causes harm." Frieden added that the "only safe thing to do is to quit smoking entirely."

King and colleagues noted that if current trends continue, smoking prevalence among adults in the U.S. will fall to 17% in 2020, but that's far short of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 12% or less.

They said the modest reduction seen between 2005 and 2010 is likely attributable to the proliferation of smoke-free environments, greater awareness of the dangers of smoking, and increased cigarette prices.

Still, Frieden called for greater funding of highly effective state tobacco cessation programs.

For instance, California's smoking cessation policies, which were implemented in 1988, have led to a 50% reduction in smoking rates, Frieden said. Studies have shown that a $1.8 billion investment in tobacco control in the state led to $86 billion in healthcare savings.

But on average, only 2% of the monies that states collect in excise taxes on cigarettes is dedicated to tobacco control. Frieden said declines in tobacco use would be much more rapid if just 10% to 15% of those funds were put toward such programs.

Smoking costs the U.S. $193 billion per year in healthcare costs and lost productivity, and it remains the single largest preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the U.S., the researchers said.

The tobacco industry spends almost $10 billion per year on advertising and promotion, and 72% of these dollars are spent on discounts to offset the costs of tobacco taxation and other policies, they added.

Frieden said companies have also made their products more addictive, by enabling greater and faster delivery of nicotine to the bloodstream, which may present future challenges in smoking cessation.

The data come from the 2005-2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

The highest smoking prevalence was seen in the Midwest (21.8%.) and in the South (21%.), while the lowest rate was observed in the western U.S. (15.9%.).

Smoking prevalence is also higher among men than women, according to the findings (21.5% versus 17.3%.).

The report was limited by self-reported data, and because neither survey assessed institutionalized patients or people in the military, which could limit its generalizability.

King and colleagues also noted that BRFSS data didn't include adults who had cellphones only. Previous research has shown that wireless-only users are more likely to smoke.

Low response rates in the surveys may also increase the potential for bias, they said.

The researchers concluded that "enhanced efforts are needed to accelerate the decline in cigarette smoking among adults."
Click to expand...

source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Smoking/28378

Added the extra periods cause it was turning the %/) into faces.
 
Smoking will never disappear. It'll plateau at a certain rate, something around 13~15% of the population. What I think we'll eventually see is tobacco use confined to certain social circles in the US, who condone it due to their general choices of values of philosophy of life, and pretty rare in most others.
 
I smoke myself so this one makes me really ponder. We've had quite a bit of discussion on the topic of smoking in the last week or two due to an article about uni's considering banning smoking on campus and some other stuff to that effect.

We all reached a general consensus though: Marked smoking areas would be best as it would keep all nonsmokers away from the bother and all smokers would still be able to smoke.
 
I don't understand these people who say it bothers them. I've never met anyone personally who was bothered by anything but indoor smoking, which I can understand. Here in the U.S., we don't have little sectioned-off indoor smoking areas, but the ones in Europe will make anyone want to quit because they are like gas chambers. Outdoors, though - I don't know. What's worse for your lungs: one car's exhaust stuck next to your bus stop in traffic or one guy walking by with a cigarette?

I oppose sectioned-off outdoor areas. What it looks like to me is the systematic gathering of smokers, part one. Maybe it's a five-part plan, but the end result will have you getting blood tests for nicotine and then receiving extra charges on healthcare costs, not to mention other taxes levied against you which I can't predict. It starts with just getting us all to stand together when we're outside. Next, your card gets scanned when you enter the smoking area. Third, you get a ticket for having cigarettes with no card. And on and on.
 
Slimvictor has some asthma problems that are very severely affected by smoke. He isn't alone in his asthma either. I hope my post doesn't sound critical but he doesn't really have a choice in his ailment. It is debilitating to him and I didn't understand before he explained. It sort of put me in the middle rather than on the side of smokers. Inherently, I can't be completely against smokers at this point in my life as I am a smoker but I did feel as though I should reach the level of compromise.
 
I just figured this was due to cigarettes being so expensive. I don't smoke, but all my friends do, and they're all pretty broke. It's over $8 for a pack here in Connecticut.
 
LogicSoDeveloped said:
Slimvictor has some asthma problems that are very severely affected by smoke. He isn't alone in his asthma either. I hope my post doesn't sound critical but he doesn't really have a choice in his ailment. It is debilitating to him and I didn't understand before he explained. It sort of put me in the middle rather than on the side of smokers. Inherently, I can't be completely against smokers at this point in my life as I am a smoker but I did feel as though I should reach the level of compromise.
Click to expand...

The only trigger for my asthma is cigarette smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top